Is a $60 Billion Intelligence Community Budget Reasonable?

The big question that has been going on behind the scenes is: Is $60 billion a reasonable figure for the budget of the entire Intelligence Community, since it represents an increase of 25% above the commonly-assumed figure of $48 billion?

The key to the higher figures would appear to be the new Intelligence Resource Information System (IRIS) for which the Senate Select Intelligence Committee recently has praised the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI.)  According to the Senate's Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2008:

Such integrated systems will build on the positive steps the Office of the DNI has already taken by creating the IC’s single Human Resources Information System and
single budget system called the Intelligence Resource Information System. This business architecture will minimize expensive and complex system interfaces and provide a costconscious solution that will promptly provide valuable data for future Directors of National Intelligence and agency heads.

IRIS is capturing far more than the earlier budget exercises--or so you would expect if the system is doing what it's supposed to do.  It's very possible that it's picking up parts of the Intelligence Community budget that have not been formally moved over to the ODNI oversight (and probably won't be in the near future, if ever, because of turf considerations.)

Given the ODNI's sweeping budgetary authority from the Intelligence Reform Act, part of the national intelligence budget that theoretically might now be included in IRIS-- but not in the traditional DCI-managed process that would be the funding for joint military and service level tactical intelligence and operations.  These budgets might include systems procurement and ongoing Operations & Maintenance for military service-specific or theater level joint warfighting support. 

Further confusing the issue is the fact that unified commands like SOCOM and CENTCOM are now hiring contractor civilian analysts and strategic debriefers and most of this wasn’t captured in the previous DCI managed process.  If it, and all of the tactical systems, are now being captured in IRIS, it’s easy to see how the total could be $60 billion. 

Some of these are included in the National Intelligence Program (NIP--formerly National Foreign Intelligence Program) budget that was previously managed by the DCI as the presumed national intelligence budget and some are not.  That’s what confused the intelligence budget issue so much, at least until now.

 

(And for the best coverage on this topic, see Steve Aftergood of the American Federation of Scientists in The Secrecy News.)

----------

Support this blog.  Check this out:

Comments

[Anonymous]

Before the hyperventilating begins, I wanted to say that whatever portion of the 70% that has gone to 'green badges' merely represents the budgets allocating to the best value for the services. If total costs for contractors are less than total costs for GS personnel, and they are equally competent (which they are), then it's a good value.

On the other hand, it's the politics behind it that are sketchy.

[R J Hillhouse]

Regular readers will know I'm not going to be the one doing the hyperventilating, even though it would be the smartest thing I could do to sell OUTSOURCED .

I agree that work by contractors, at least in the case of the CIA, is at least as good as what was previously performed in house. It's the same people doing the work--paid much more even with the recent cap. And they are without the constraints of HRM and politics from the 7th floor political appointees.

70%--$42 billion according to the ODNI presentation--is allocated to contractors. The bulk of that undoubtedly goes to DoD. We have no way of knowing how much goes to personal services contracts or to "green badgers."

As for the best value from "green badgers," I would never go there. There are a lot of benefits and some very big drawbacks, particularly due to the haphazard way in which this aquamarine system of blue and green badgers was cobbled together.